I am posting this so that we can talk about rugby, yes I will use links from the media to create a discussion, and whether you agree with them or not, it is not me saying them.

So, the Pro12, how could it move forward, for me there are one or two bones of contention for me, and that is the refereeing situation we find ourselves in, and the two Italian sides, firstly I will speak about the Italian sides, they have been here for a few years now and they are getting worse, now whether that is because of the fall out with the CC or not, the simple fact is they are not adding much to the league other than a banker five points when they travel and the odd banana skin when teams travel to play them. I would not like to see the Italians cut adrift, but at the same time they seriously need to up their game, at the moment they look as if they do not want to be here and are just waiting for the season to end, recent results have reflected this. I also think, that at the moment a place in the top tier of Europe is a waste for them, they will never win that competition with the state they are in at the moment and I think it would be far more beneficial for them to play in the second tier where they would have a better chance of picking up results and giving them more confidence. Jonathan Davies was pretty scathing about them on Scrum V on Sunday night:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/36068740

Now I do not agree with him when it comes to ditching the Italians, but he does make a good point. Something needs to be seriously looked at when we are considering the two Italian teams, what would you suggest ?

Secondly I will talk about our refereeing situation, I am very uncomfortable with the status quo we find ourselves in at the moment when it comes to the referees, I am not comfortable that we are in a situation where the unions employ the referees AND the players. This leads to calls of potential bias, and the union controlled teams bringing their own refs with them, I think the referees should be employed by a central organisation, not the unions, and I think that the central organisation should be the league itself, the money the unions pay the refs should be payed to the league and then the league should have direct control over the referees. The league should then have a remit of how the refs should perform, and all the refs should be singing from the same hymn sheet, not that of their respective unions. Only when something like this happens will we see an improvement.

I would also like to talk about an article I read on WOL that Jeremy Guscott scratched upon, and states that we should be improving our brand of rugby to be able to compete with the French and English, also he has pointed out that because our CC players are restricted to the amount of games they can play, they hamper the teams involved, this I agree with, and I would rather we rested our players for Europe and played them more in the league. Guscott says that because there is no relegation from the Pro12 then there should be no excuses for us not playing a better brand of rugby. Anyway here's the link if anyone is interested:-

LordDowlais wrote:I thought that the payment of the DC in Wales was a way of the WRU paying for the use of the players that the regions have spent and invested a lot of time and money into getting them up to the standards needed for international rugby. Are we saying the WRU should get these players for nowt, and the regions keep paying their wages when they are with team Wales ?

The DC are a sort of way of renting the players from their regions, by doing this the WRU can get access to them when they feel the need to. They are not employed by the WRU.

WTF?

The NDC doesn't provide the WRU with any mechanism to get the holder 'up to the standards needed for international rugby'.

You're absolutely bloody clueless. The Annual Report from the WRU shows that the players with NDCs are primarily employed by the WRU. It's in writing, you bloody fool.

The rest of the players in Team Wales are rented by the WRU. That's what they pay money for.

You really have just shown that you have no idea as to how any of this works.

Oh so I am a fool am I ? How the feck can an organisation employ 60% of one person ?

You are the fool who lives in a fantasy land where you make your own facts up and think nothing exists outside of your Cardiff utopia.

Munchkin wrote:I was telling you that you were talking BS, that's all. Getting carried away with another of your conspiracy theories, which are usually very thin on substance, and often devoid of fact.

And I'm asking you to justify your position on calling that as BS. I wrote about conversations in Welsh rugby circles. You called that as BS.

On what grounds? Do tell.

I don't have to justify it. You make a claim, a positive claim, and present it as evidence, in a debate.... So, you are actually saying "this is my evidence, but you can't see it because you don't live here".... See the problem? No?

LordDowlais wrote:Oh so I am a fool am I ? How the feck can an organisation employ 60% of one person ?

You are the fool who lives in a fantasy land where you make your own facts up and think nothing exists outside of your Cardiff utopia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/29305689

RRW added: "The dual contract involves the WRU having primacy of contract with the national dual contracted player, but entering into a joint player agreement with the region which confirms the contribution of the player to both the region and the national side according to agreed structures.

"The total cost of the player is then split on a 60:40 basis between WRU and region, which broadly reflects the amount of time an international player is generally available to each party in a given season."

Munchkin wrote:I don't have to justify it. You make a claim, a positive claim, and present it as evidence, in a debate.... So, you are actually saying "this is my evidence, but you can't see it because you don't live here".... See the problem? No?

You don't have to justify it??!?! Hahahahahahahahha. That's funny.

And, no, I don't see a problem. My comments on Irish rugby are based on what's in the public domain across the world.

In the meanwhile, you keep shouting BS from a position of self confessed pure ignorance. Awesome.

Munchkin wrote:I don't have to justify it. You make a claim, a positive claim, and present it as evidence, in a debate.... So, you are actually saying "this is my evidence, but you can't see it because you don't live here".... See the problem? No?

You don't have to justify it??!?! Hahahahahahahahha. That's funny.

And, no, I don't see a problem. My comments on Irish rugby are based on what's in the public domain across the world.

In the meanwhile, you keep shouting BS from a position of self confessed pure ignorance. Awesome.

No, why would I have to justify calling a baseless claim BS? How do you not get this? Give me facts, not fiction.

Last edited by Munchkin on Wed 20 Apr 2016, 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

You cannot employ 60% of a person. I know, I have about 10 people working for me, they are employed by me to do a job. You can be employed by two separate entities, but you cannot employ part of a person.

You cannot employ 60% of a person. I know, I have about 10 people working for me, they are employed by me to do a job. You can be employed by two separate entities, but you cannot employ part of a person.

You cannot employ 60% of a person. I know, I have about 10 people working for me, they are employed by me to do a job. You can be employed by two separate entities, but you cannot employ part of a person.

You employ that person for the 100% you pay his wages, even if that amounts to 60% of a package. Do the Regions then not employ a person when giving 40% of that package?

You cannot employ 60% of a person. I know, I have about 10 people working for me, they are employed by me to do a job. You can be employed by two separate entities, but you cannot employ part of a person.

You are overthinking it

No I am not. When the players play for the regions, they are employed by the regions, as the regions are paying them whatever the 40% is to work for them. The WRU pay 60% of whatever they are earning, so when they are with the WRU they do work for them. It's pretty simple, a bit like having two jobs.

No I am not. When the players play for the regions, they are employed by the regions, as the regions are paying them whatever the 40% is to work for them. The WRU pay 60% of whatever they are earning, so when they are with the WRU they do work for them. It's pretty simple, a bit like having two jobs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What is it with the increasing insults on here in general?

Pretty much all Phil, maybe time for a mod to step in and put him in the naughty corner

Oh dear. You must be tired of being shown up.

No just think you are quite arrogant and childish, no issue with someone having a debate and challenging points of view but name calling is a little sad and think you are coming across as quite angry and in need of a little anger management

marty2086 wrote:No just think you are quite arrogant and childish, no issue with someone having a debate and challenging points of view but name calling is a little sad and think you are coming across as quite angry and in need of a little anger management

Yeah, you're probably right.

But the issue with having a debate means conceding when you've been shown to be wrong. I look forward to that coming from you, martyn.

You cannot employ 60% of a person. I know, I have about 10 people working for me, they are employed by me to do a job. You can be employed by two separate entities, but you cannot employ part of a person.

You are overthinking it

No I am not. When the players play for the regions, they are employed by the regions, as the regions are paying them whatever the 40% is to work for them. The WRU pay 60% of whatever they are earning, so when they are with the WRU they do work for them. It's pretty simple, a bit like having two jobs.

You cannot employ a fraction of a person.

Theres a number of ways to do it, I do work for two companies one pays me directly and invoices the other monthly for a rough estimate of the time along with other things. This could be how the WRU work it or the two could pay separately covering their split of the contract

Phill, seriously, do not get into an employment argument with me, I have been in this game for the best part of twenty years, I suggest you go and read what primacy of contract means, not what it sounds like it means. I am not getting into this with you as you are de-railing this topic with your nonsense.

marty2086 wrote:No just think you are quite arrogant and childish, no issue with someone having a debate and challenging points of view but name calling is a little sad and think you are coming across as quite angry and in need of a little anger management

Yeah, you're probably right.

But the issue with having a debate means conceding when you've been shown to be wrong. I look forward to that coming from you, martyn.

How was I wrong? Friend is a Bristol City supporter

Unlike some I have acknowledged in the past when Im wrong, instead of name calling or running away

Sorry, but what fact would you like to justify my sentence? A link to Gwlad? Twitter? A rugby club conversation?

None of the above. Here's your claim: "That's funny as it's pretty widely recognised in Wales as being an issue."

You would need a reliable poll to justify your claim, not 'my mates told me at a pub', or Mr A Moaner on Twitter said it. It just doesn't work like that. It's like the usual cry, which is BS, 'everybody knows'.

Now, back on real evidence, if there was a poll, and the majority of people in Wales did agree that Irish refs being 'colleagues' of the Provinces was an issue, then all that would suggest is that your theory is supported by the majority, not that the theory is in fact true. Real facts are required to support your implied, if this is what you are implying, claim that Irish refs are influenced to cheat on behalf of their Provincial/IRFU 'colleagues'. Stats wouldn't be conclusive (games won lost, cards, etc..), but would be supportive, however, even the stats suggest what you imply is completely false. So calling the theory BS is appropriate.

You Numpty

Last edited by Munchkin on Wed 20 Apr 2016, 4:30 pm; edited 3 times in total

Sorry, but what fact would you like to justify my sentence? A link to Gwlad? Twitter? A rugby club conversation?

None of the above. Here's your claim: "That's funny as it's pretty widely recognised in Wales as being an issue."

You would need a reliable poll to justify your claim, not 'my mates told me at a pub', or Mr A Moaner on Twitter said it. It just doesn't work like that. It's like the usual cry, which is BS, 'everybody knows'.

Now, back on real evidence, if there was a poll, and the majority of people in Wales did agree that Irish refs being 'colleagues' of the Provinces was an issue, then all that would suggest is that your theory is supported by the majority, not that the theory is in fact true. Real facts are required to support your implied, if this is what you are implying, claim that Irish refs are influenced to cheat on behalf of their Provincial/IRFU 'colleagues'. Stats wouldn't be conclusive, but would be supportive, however, even the stats suggest what you imply is completely false. So calling the theory BS is appropriate.

Sorry, but what fact would you like to justify my sentence? A link to Gwlad? Twitter? A rugby club conversation?

None of the above. Here's your claim: "That's funny as it's pretty widely recognised in Wales as being an issue."

You would need a reliable poll to justify your claim, not 'my mates told me at a pub', or Mr A Moaner on Twitter said it. It just doesn't work like that. It's like the usual cry, which is BS, 'everybody knows'.

Now, back on real evidence, if there was a poll, and the majority of people in Wales did agree that Irish refs being 'colleagues' of the Provinces was an issue, then all that would suggest is that your theory is supported by the majority, not that the theory is in fact true. Real facts are required to support your implied, if this is what you are implying, claim that Irish refs are influenced to cheat on behalf of their Provincial/IRFU 'colleagues'. Stats wouldn't be conclusive, but would be supportive, however, even the stats suggest what you imply is completely false. So calling the theory BS is appropriate.

munkian wrote:I, personally, not as the spokesperson of Wales and the Welsh people, believe its a strange state of affairs when you have ANY countries refs being colleagues of its sports teams.

Again, thats ANY country.

ANY.

And again, NOT a spokesperson.

I understand that, but don't have an issue with it. It would be easy to claim any is ref biased. I mean, English AP refs may support an AP team, or come from the location of a team they are officiating for. Easy to make the claim that they would be biased.

Scarlets makes a point which kind of supports the above. The claim that even those refs not officiating a game representing their fellow countrymen can be accused of bias. Some might think they are being hard on one team to help anothers chances in the league. What's the solution for that? If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scotish referees, in the PRO12.

In effect, we are not trying to fix issues with the refereeing, we are trying to fix an issue with the false perception of disgruntled fans.

Munchkin wrote:If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scots referees.

That would be ideal, but it will not happen. So the only way for me is to take OUR refs away from the unions and have them answerable to the league. The Pro12 could have a "Head of Referees" role, and it could be somebody from another country not involved with the Pro12, ideally I would like it to be a retired ref, from the SH, he could be the spokesperson for the referees, there is so much more we could be doing with this.

munkian wrote:I, personally, not as the spokesperson of Wales and the Welsh people, believe its a strange state of affairs when you have ANY countries refs being colleagues of its sports teams.

Again, thats ANY country.

ANY.

And again, NOT a spokesperson.

I understand that, but don't have an issue with it. It would be easy to claim any is ref biased. I mean, English AP refs may support an AP team, or come from the location of a team they are officiating for. Easy to make the claim that they would be biased.

Scarlets makes a point which kind of supports the above. The claim that even those refs not officiating a game representing their fellow countrymen can be accused of bias. Some might think they are being hard on one team to help anothers chances in the league. What's the solution for that? If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scotish referees.

In effect, we are not trying to fix issues with the refereeing, we are trying to fix an issue with the false perception of disgruntled fans.

I think a professional league shouldn't be organised in a way that things like this COULD be called into doubt rather than I believe things are genuinely biased, if that makes sense ?

I think there probably needs to be more referee training so interpretations are so wildly different from match to match either.

Munchkin wrote:If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scots referees.

That would be ideal, but it will not happen. So the only way for me is to take OUR refs away from the unions and have them answerable to the league. The Pro12 could have a "Head of Referees" role, and it could be somebody from another country not involved with the Pro12, ideally I would like it to be a retired ref, from the SH, he could be the spokesperson for the referees, there is so much more we could be doing with this.

I have thought along that line myself, LD, but it really wouldn't deal with the issue of perceived bias. It's an issue that exists only in the minds of those that think that way. The only real solution, if not removing all Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian refs, is to send all those fans to a shrink, and have their heads fixed.

I don't believe the claims of bias, and so don't see it as an issue that needs fixed. Consistency in refereeing I do see as something that could be improved on, and maybe having all PRO12 refs coming from a central pot might help with that. Alternatively, communication between the refs could be improved through video conferencing. Bring them all together to agree on interpretation, providing video samples, and work towards a unity in understanding, on a weekly basis. Cheap solution, if it works.

Munchkin wrote:If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scots referees.

That would be ideal, but it will not happen. So the only way for me is to take OUR refs away from the unions and have them answerable to the league. The Pro12 could have a "Head of Referees" role, and it could be somebody from another country not involved with the Pro12, ideally I would like it to be a retired ref, from the SH, he could be the spokesperson for the referees, there is so much more we could be doing with this.

I have thought along that line myself, LD, but it really wouldn't deal with the issue of perceived bias. It's an issue that exists only in the minds of those that think that way. The only real solution, if not removing all Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian refs, is to send all those fans to a shrink, and have their heads fixed.

I don't believe the claims of bias, and so don't see it as an issue that needs fixed. Consistency in refereeing I do see as something that could be improved on, and maybe having all PRO12 refs coming from a central pot might help with that. Alternatively, communication between the refs could be improved through video conferencing. Bring them all together to agree on interpretation, providing video samples, and work towards a unity in understanding, on a weekly basis. Cheap solution, if it works.

Given that a lot of refs can't be consistent with their own decisions, the odds of us getting a group of them to be is asking a lot

munkian wrote:I, personally, not as the spokesperson of Wales and the Welsh people, believe its a strange state of affairs when you have ANY countries refs being colleagues of its sports teams.

Again, thats ANY country.

ANY.

And again, NOT a spokesperson.

I understand that, but don't have an issue with it. It would be easy to claim any is ref biased. I mean, English AP refs may support an AP team, or come from the location of a team they are officiating for. Easy to make the claim that they would be biased.

Scarlets makes a point which kind of supports the above. The claim that even those refs not officiating a game representing their fellow countrymen can be accused of bias. Some might think they are being hard on one team to help anothers chances in the league. What's the solution for that? If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scotish referees.

In effect, we are not trying to fix issues with the refereeing, we are trying to fix an issue with the false perception of disgruntled fans.

I think a professional league shouldn't be organised in a way that things like this COULD be called into doubt rather than I believe things are genuinely biased, if that makes sense ?

I think there probably needs to be more referee training so interpretations are so wildly different from match to match either.

You make perfect sense. If there is a way to effectively, and practically, help reduce a perception of bias, it should be done. just don't know how that can be achieved though. Actually, I think it's just a part of sport culture, in any league, in any sport.

Totally agree on the issue with interpretation. That's an issue that I think we would all like to see tackled. That and the use of TMO.

Munchkin wrote:If we were to believe the claims, and fix the alleged problem, we wouldn't have any Welsh, Irish, Italian or Scots referees.

That would be ideal, but it will not happen. So the only way for me is to take OUR refs away from the unions and have them answerable to the league. The Pro12 could have a "Head of Referees" role, and it could be somebody from another country not involved with the Pro12, ideally I would like it to be a retired ref, from the SH, he could be the spokesperson for the referees, there is so much more we could be doing with this.

I have thought along that line myself, LD, but it really wouldn't deal with the issue of perceived bias. It's an issue that exists only in the minds of those that think that way. The only real solution, if not removing all Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian refs, is to send all those fans to a shrink, and have their heads fixed.

I don't believe the claims of bias, and so don't see it as an issue that needs fixed. Consistency in refereeing I do see as something that could be improved on, and maybe having all PRO12 refs coming from a central pot might help with that. Alternatively, communication between the refs could be improved through video conferencing. Bring them all together to agree on interpretation, providing video samples, and work towards a unity in understanding, on a weekly basis. Cheap solution, if it works.

Given that a lot of refs can't be consistent with their own decisions, the odds of us getting a group of them to be is asking a lot

Some can be a bit flaky, and I don't think consistency will ever be perfected. Just more consistency would be great though.